Aug 27 2013

Death by Iridology

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Death by Iridology”.

Share

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “Death by Iridology”

  1. HHCon 27 Aug 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Mrs. Maine’s cancer was a cyst about 40 years ago. A doctor diagnosed it. But the average retired school teacher does not understand that the cells can change. A diagnosis is not like a static passage in the bible written by a scribe. Too late to teach this lesson to her. Another consideration is the cost of surgery. The patient could assume that catastrophic costs would be incurred with every medical doctor diagnosis. Not so with iridology, eh?

  2. SouthLanderon 27 Aug 2013 at 7:04 pm

    Sad, sad, sad. Thanks for covering this Steve, the more info there is out there for people in the position the late Mrs. Maine was in prior to her death to find the better. As always, the readers of this and other science/scepticism blogs are not the ones that need to be told that iridology and related practices are bullshizzle but hopefully any kiwis (or others) seeking treatment outside the realm of science based medicine will turn this up in a Google search and think twice. New Zealand thanks you sir!

  3. Stuartgon 27 Aug 2013 at 8:42 pm

    In this case, there is no need to consider the cost of treatment.

    In New Zealand the hospital system is entirely public and free unless a person actively selects to see a private surgeon.

    I suspect the cost of the iridologist over many years was higher to Mrs. Maine than standard treatment would have been.

  4. ccbowerson 27 Aug 2013 at 10:31 pm

    “A practitioner, in fact, should refuse to treat someone unless they were also seeking proper medical care.”

    The problem is that these are not real practitioners, but are people acting as such with no expertise. So they have only a layperson’s ability to determine if a person is receiving proper medical care, which is a threshold much lower than the expectation of an actual practitioner to evaluate a medical problem. The duty to advise is typically viewed in light of the ability and knowledge expected for that type of practitioner, so I think you’d have to show that even a reasonable layperson should have known better.

  5. Davdoodleson 28 Aug 2013 at 12:30 am

    I don’t care what this scam artist thought she was doing, or what blibber-blab she uses to describe it, or whether it was effective or unicorn farts.

    The fact is that she was purporting to treat someone’s life-threatening medical condition. In exchange for money.

    Or, to put it another way, she was practising ‘medicine’, without a license.

    She should be in jail.
    .

  6. ccbowerson 28 Aug 2013 at 10:39 am

    “Or, to put it another way, she was practising ‘medicine’, without a license. She should be in jail.”

    Yeah, I think whether she was practicing medicine without a license is another question that could be asked, but what will happen is not based upon what you think “should” happen. It is based upon the laws in the place in which this occurred and the details of this particular case. On the surface it seems obvious that this iridologist has contributed to this person’s decision not to seek medical care (therefore her death), but we’ll have to see how this unfolds. The details of what took place and evidence for them are what’s important here, not our emotional reaction to the idea of what happened.

  7. Davdoodleson 29 Aug 2013 at 1:50 am

    “The details of what took place and evidence for them are what’s important here, not our emotional reaction to the idea of what happened.”

    Uh, that’s what I wrote.

  8. Aaron0112on 29 Aug 2013 at 11:28 pm

    It’s unfortunate to see this happen in my home country. Usually stories I hear come out of U.S.A. or even Australia. Hopefully, this will allow the beginning of some sort of regulation of pseudo scientific practices in New Zealand.

  9. ccbowerson 30 Aug 2013 at 10:30 am

    “Uh, that’s what I wrote”

    You also wrote “She should be in jail.” without acknowledging our lack of details regarding the evidence, nor the relevant laws that pertains to this case. Perhaps she should be in jail, but appropriate skepticism prevents me from making such a definitive statement.

  10. seanjoynton 13 Mar 2014 at 10:52 am

    Blaming iridology…especially in this case is irrelevant and stupid…it’s the practitioner …and the patient …not the practice…this is just slating holistic practices in general and disregarding the fact that thousands of people are cured of numerous diseases and ailments by natural means…what about the seriously chronic malpractices and miss diagnosises not only by doctors but in hospitals…where literally thousands of people die like lambs to the slughter..where you’re all saying we are ‘safe’…wake up and move with the times….we are no longer slaves to medical system…there are many options…do some research…open your mind a little and you will realise there’s a place for everyone

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.